Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2822814, member: 1892&quot;]Sanitized, censored and - to my mind - looking Photoshopped on the cheek. Under the circumstances, Brett, and knowing you it is <b>not</b> &#039;Shopped, but it sure presents the appearance. A whole bunch of detail at the rear of the cheek near the ear (almost looks stuck through) right next to a vast area of homogenous color? I&#039;m guessing we&#039;re just looking at lighting anomalies, but if I were altering an image to be deceptive, I wouldn&#039;t let work of this low quality off my computer. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Images aren&#039;t large enough for me to offer a reliable grade for a coin in this condition. I&#039;d really want to see the &quot;business&quot; up near US, and the fields/cheek from a couple of different lighting angles and more closely to determine whether 67 was my limit or something higher was in order.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is the single most common Morgan in 68, and 6 of the 10 known in 69. My guess is the OP coin is one of those.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yes, I said &quot;10.&quot; At some point in the last year, <b>PCGS has graded an 1879-P at 69</b>; it now appears in their Pops. I&#039;ve no idea why that didn&#039;t receive headlines. The previous Top Pop for that year is MS67; it has to be a &quot;new&quot; coin because I can&#039;t imagine them jumping a known coin two grades.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in